Stevens warned State Dep’t on day he died about deterioriating security in Benghazi

posted at 5:21 pm on October 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

Not just on the day he died, mind you. Multiple times before, too. I’m near the point now where I want to abandon the whole “pre-planned attack versus spontaneous protest” line of inquiry just because it’s steering us away from the more important topic of State’s negligence on his security. Besides, we already know, more or less, why Carney and Rice pushed the “spontaneous protest” theory. Ask Saxby Chambliss:

“Talking points distributed by the administration [in the immediate aftermath] are nearly identical to intelligence assessments within hours of the attack, except in one important way: the intelligence judgment that the attackers had ties to al-Qa’ida was excluded from the public points,” [Saxby] Chambliss said in a statement on Friday.

“The administration omitted the known links to al-Qa’ida at almost every opportunity … Whether this was an intentional effort by the administration to downplay the role of terrorist groups, especially al-Qa’ida, is one of the many issues the Senate Intelligence Committee must examine,” Chambliss said.

The guy who got Bin Laden and knocked out Qaddafi didn’t need a storyline in the middle of a campaign about AQ affiliates killing the American ambassador in the heart of the “new Libya.” That’s straightforward, and that’s almost certainly why the “spontaneous protest” theory got traction initially. (“Al Qaeda is on the run” used to be part of Obama’s standard stump speech, in fact. That line has been quietly dropped lately.) What’s not straightforward is why State refused to boost Stevens’s security despite countless warnings about the danger, some from the man himself. It’s inexplicable. It’s not a budget issue, either: Charlene Lamb testified to that before the House. She also testified that State had “the correct number of assets in Benghazi,” which literally no one but her seems to believe is true. So, once again: Why didn’t Stevens have more security? What were they waiting for before making a decision to either send him a more professional force or end the American presence in Benghazi? Was that politicized too, i.e. State didn’t want abandon the consulate over security fears because that would have made for some bad headlines about conditions inside the “new Libya”?

On Sept. 11 — the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed — the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”…

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape.” He added, “The individual incidents have been organized,” a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”…

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote [on June 25], adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

Libyan guards at the consulate also thought security was too thin to meet the challenge from local mujahedeen, but were reportedly told by the Americans they spoke to that everything was cool and that no one would dare approach the consulate — even though, as noted above, even the Red Cross wasn’t spared from attack. (That may have been part of a jihadi strategy to push all western outfits out of the city.) I’d sure like to know which Americans said that; based on his increasingly dire reports to the State Department, it doesn’t sound like Stevens was one of them.

I’ll leave you with this. Funny how Susan Rice is capable of detecting a terrorist attack right away in some cases. Is she sure that Beirut bombing this morning wasn’t a reaction to the Mohammed movie?

We condemn in the strongest possible terms the terrorist bombing in #Beirut & extend our condolences to the victims’ loved ones. #Lebanon

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

way to blame the victims you fathead. i hope to all that is Holy that karma comes back to bite you in the you know whats… typical of all you apologists. They stayed because it was their Duty to their Nation. just as it was the governments responsibility to protect them. The Toddler in Chief failed. get over yourself and stop blaming the victims you worthless excuse for a human being. if it had been your loved one i bet your tune would be much different right about now.

(“Al Qaeda is on the run” used to be part of Obama’s standard stump speech, in fact.

Which was stupid. Nobody was going to believe that anyway.

Obama’s desire to push this meme is probably why the security footprint in Libya wasn’t increased. In other words, he risked damaging his campaign in order to push a meme that nobody was going to believe anyway. Obama = Stupid.

Oct 19, 2012 3:22pm
Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi
By Jake Trapper
***************

Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released new documents backing up claims by security personnel previously station in Libya that there was a shortage of security personnel in Benghazi.

contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country.

The U.S. State Department did not have an immediate comment.

One signed by Stevens and titled “LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORIATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY,” dated June 25, 2012, assess the increase in violence. ”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.
(A lot more…….)
===================

where oh where are all teh investigative journalism pieces, sit-down interviews on camera with other ambassadors from craphole islamic nations? 20yrs ago there would have been a stampede for tell-all interviews, of both journalists and ‘whistleblowers’. Now it’s almost nothing. I take it as a measure of how thoroughly both groups are penetrated by ideological leftists. Unity of purpose. Unity of message. Unity of deceit.

This is not important. Only right wing extremists care. No one else cares. It’s not like American citizens were murdered by Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists or something. Let’s move along to more important things, like Romney’s attack on Big Bird, or something.

It’s almost as if someone in the administration wanted something to happen to Stevens.

mbs on October 19, 2012 at 5:27 PM

It really does make you wonder what they were thinking when they denied extra security. I just want to know who, specifically, made that incredibly stupid decision. And, I don’t care who’s desk the buck stops on. I want to see some retribution. Someone has to, at the very least, lose a job and pension. A prison sentence would please me much more.

RE: have been asked by sources not to reveal the specific weapons system that was Washington’s highest priority to buy back, but the details make sense.

Sorry. To anyone, even with half a brain, IT CANNOT MAKE SENSE. AT ALL.

Terrorist NEED and SPEND money to BUY guns. And in extremely rare cases can they ever buy SOPHISTICATED weapons systems, for obvious reasons (hard to obtain and easy to track, hard to store and conceal as well). Actually, one major fault I can assign to Reagan was selling Stingers to Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan, weapons that until this day are still used against us now. Navy SEAL 6 helicopter “accident” anyone?

And someone in our intel community and WH Admin thinks that after being able to get their hands on some serious weapons terrorists will actually give them back in exchange for money that will only be able to buy them much less serious weapons?

Most ridiculous thing I could think of. Is this how CIA and WH Admin will try to “excuse” themselves now?

If anything, these “thinkers” were had by the terrorists, who conveniently enough made sure that late Amb. Steves will be in a non-protected Benghazi compound.

Just to remind all, how did we do with buying our Stingers back from Taliban after Soviets left the place? Please name ANY OTHER instance when terrorist SOLD their arms back to us. They BUY, they DO NOT SELL.

This is the stupidest analysis of the situation there is. IMHO. Can;t believe adults are thinking this and now buying this BS.

This story is coming apart at the seams for the White House in spite of the embargo the legacy media has put on it. The intelligence community is not going to take the fall for this without a big fight. CIA has come out today to defend themselves. State has already defended themselves. Clapper may take the hit. He seems willing.

It really does make you wonder what they were thinking when they denied extra security. I just want to know who, specifically, made that incredibly stupid decision. And, I don’t care who’s desk the buck stops on. I want to see some retribution. Someone has to, at the very least, lose a job and pension. A prison sentence would please me much more.

jffree1 on October 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM

My husband was just reading this over my shoulder and said, “Watch Obama and Hillary start blaming Ambassador Stevens- they’re going to try and figure out a way to say he was “not stable” and that’s why they didn’t take him seriously.” Farfetched, but so is everything that’s already been proven.

For all those asking, “What was the ambassador doing in Benghazi on 9/11/12, and why wasn’t he at the embassy in Tripoli, instead?” it’s a good question and should be asked at the appropriate security clearance level. Public inquiries will likely be met with the boilerplate “that’s classified” response.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it…the president running around the country spouting off and spiking the football about bin Laden being dead and saying Al Qaeda is on its heels, on the run. Wouldn’t that embolden our enemy to attack again? Just a thought, maybe the big Oaf should have kept his big mouth shut when it came to that. After all, it wasn’t him that did the dirty deed, he just gave the nod. This administration has made almost as many mistakes trying to get re-elected as it has trying to run the country.

if it had been your loved one i bet your tune would be much different right about now.

katee bayer on October 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM

If it had been my loved ones, and I knew how callous and negligent his bosses were towards my loved one’s life, to the extent of almost forcing them into an untimely unnecessary gruesome and totally forseeable death, I would have told my loved ones to get the heck out and face the consequences later.
This was not a war scene . They were civilians.
Enjoyed your rant BTW !!

if and i admit it is a big if , but if any one in this current administration has a jot of sense in what they call a brain this is something they wont do. i guarantee you if they try to put the blame on Stevens the american public will crucify them. joe schmoe may be a low info voter but remember when push comes to shove almost all americans are patriots. just think back to 9/11 , even liberal fatheads were screaming for war. we americans are like the big dog chained up in the back yard , we are content to roll over and play dead for our loved ones but when someone threatens those we are supposed to protect the teeth come out and its on. i doubt the administration is stupid enough to go there , but if they are it will solve all our problems because the flood of people running to the voteing booths will be deafening to the rats for YEARS to come.

The intelligence community is not going to take the fall for this without a big fight. CIA has come out today to defend themselves. State has already defended themselves. Clapper may take the hit. He seems willing.

d1carter on October 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM

And yet Petraus is missing, as in VANISHED, for the past 5 weeks.

Care to take a bet that this will be a co-ordinated effort between CIA and WH admin? Petraus is a closet liberal, as are embers of Chiefs of Staff, one of whom even had the balls to call the video maker to ask him to take it down.

They are simply working out a strategy for now. And seemingly are making inroads convincing some (see my post above) that they have “legit reasons” for both Stevens’ presence in Benghazi that day as well as lax security. As in, “we were doing this for the greater good..” BS, and in turn making sure no agency/admin suffer any blame.

Read carefully their latest “leaks”. Which Stevens, nor anyone else at this point, can deny/refute. Unfortunately.

My husband was just reading this over my shoulder and said, “Watch Obama and Hillary start blaming Ambassador Stevens- they’re going to try and figure out a way to say he was “not stable” and that’s why they didn’t take him seriously.” Farfetched, but so is everything that’s already been proven.

“No, because as part of our campaign to both re-elect the president and mollify the Muslims, we are going to allow you to be kidnapped so we can trade The Blind Sheik for you.

“BTW, tell those former SEALs not to defend you too vigorously or things could get ugly.”

Akzed on October 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Now, THIS line of inquiry definitely needs more coverage. Our last ambassador killed was Adolph Dubs, U.S. Ambassador to…wait for it…Afghanistan. He was gunned down in 1979 during a botched kidnapping. Were Khattalah’s men trying to kidnap Stevens–if so, why? IIRC, first-hand reports of the consulate attack have Stevens retreating into a “safe room” within the consulate, and his attackers repeatedly trying unsuccessfully to break into that safe room. Could be that they improvised and tried to smoke him out by setting fires.

“Going to an extremely dangerous location with totally inadequate security” cannot be found in the job description of an American ambassador. Neither can “Intentionally becoming a hostage or an assassination victim.”

You know- I used to just dislike Obama, (and Hillary) because I disagreed with them politically. Now I think they are two of those most hideous criminals on earth. Obama better not be able to tap dance his way out of taking responsibility for these men”s deaths.

BettyRuth on October 19, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I agree with you wholeheartedly, although I have serious doubts about getting Obama to take any responsibility. He should, don’t get me wrong, but I’m very pessimistic about it.

are you really so devoid of compassion and morals as to continue to blame the VICTIM? are you a US embassador? no ? then STHU! if you are not in his position you have no way of knowing what his orders were. so STHU and get off the apologist horse you mean spirited little peon. i swear i never thought i would see the day that so many americans would become so devoid of morals that they would stoop as low as you have here by blameing the victims . folks like you sicken me, and to think i joined the army to defend the rights of people like you to speak such evil mean spirited tripe. it blows the mind. i do hope that some day your evil comes back to haunt you.

It really does make you wonder what they were thinking when they denied extra security. I just want to know who, specifically, made that incredibly stupid decision

What makes you think anyone specifically denied the request? Do you think that perhaps any action would have required moving personnel from one location to another? There are over 200 embassies and consulates around the world, with only just over 2000 security personnel assigned to security. Many of those outposts operate in parts of the world hostile to the US, and many report security concerns each month. This was a tragic outcome but the world is a dangerous place. As under Bush, attacks on US staff abroad will occur and some will succeed.

My husband was just reading this over my shoulder and said, “Watch Obama and Hillary start blaming Ambassador Stevens- they’re going to try and figure out a way to say he was “not stable” and that’s why they didn’t take him seriously.” Farfetched, but so is everything that’s already been proven.

BettyRuth on October 19, 2012 at 6:32 P

Oh Betty, how dramatic! Those evil Clintons- you’re so clever!

It’s amazing how 4 deaths in the Middle East have suddenly become an almost imaginable tragedy. After 6,000 service personnel have given their lives fighting wars of questionable strategic value over the past decade (more than clear once Iraq became subservient to Iran), let’s focus on 4 deaths since you can blame Obama 100%.

Bayam i love you but i cant see your blame bush arguement flying love. War happens and as a former Army soldier i can tell you i was 100 percent behind my president when he ordered us to Iraq. and yes lets focus on those 4 deaths, look at it this way , in war soldiers will die but an American Embassador who should have had diplomatic immunity was murdered by terrorists AFTER requesting more security on multiple occasions. Hate to say it but as an Embassador of the USA he was entitled to more protection then he was given and he was more than a mere soldier, most Embassadors arent there to simply push papers they are also their to gather as much on site intelligence as they are able. sorry bush sending us to iraq DOES NOT EXCUSE the toddler in chief from abbrigating his duty to protect the Embassador he asigned to Libya.

As under Bush, attacks on US staff abroad will occur and some will succeed.

bayam on October 19, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Americans understand this.

Americans don’t understand allowing diplomats to take unnecessary risks simply because the administration needs to create a perception.

What Americans really don’t understand is politicians that lie to cover-up and lie to cover-up the cover-up.

Your statements about moving security personal are silly. New security personnel can always be repositioned, and diplomats can always be extracted. The problem for the administration was that both of these actions have political costs.

are you really so devoid of compassion and morals as to continue to blame the VICTIM? are you a US embassador? no ? then STHU! if you are not in his position you have no way of knowing what his orders were. so STHU and get off the apologist horse you mean spirited little peon. i swear i never thought i would see the day that so many americans would become so devoid of morals that they would stoop as low as you have here by blameing the victims . folks like you sicken me, and to think i joined the army to defend the rights of people like you to speak such evil mean spirited tripe. it blows the mind. i do hope that some day your evil comes back to haunt you.

katee bayer on October 19, 2012 at 6:53 PM

How you got to me “blaming the victim” I don’t know, but you need to calm down, take a stress pill, and reread what I wrote. I want to see justice done for Stevens and the truth revealed.

Your ranting does you little credit. And I am an army veteran and a former Foreign Service Officer myself, thank you very much, so you can descend from your moral high horse now.

It’s amazing how 4 deaths in the Middle East have suddenly become an almost imaginable tragedy. After 6,000 service personnel have given their lives fighting wars of questionable strategic value over the past decade (more than clear once Iraq became subservient to Iran), let’s focus on 4 deaths since you can blame Obama 100%.

that is how i see you balmeing the victim Sir . Flat out he was doing his JOB. he was doing what the President of the United States sent him there to do. dont you dare question his orders especially since had he been given the all clear to flee for safety reasons you can damn sure bet the current Toddler in the White house would have been blasting that info to all and sundry, so as to avoid the backlash of not provideing him with the security he requested. and you may think i am on a high horse but as someone who served i DEEPLY resent folks who question those who DIED to Protect and SERVE their Nation , and if you are indeed a vet you should be ashamed of yourself for questioning him for following his DUTY.

“Going to an extremely dangerous location with totally inadequate security” cannot be found in the job description of an American ambassador. Neither can “Intentionally becoming a hostage or an assassination victim.”

spiritof61 on October 19, 2012 at 6:48 PM

It’s not black and white. There is a lot of gray. Ambassadors in such places accept a certain amount of risk and must constantly weigh the risk against the reward of doing their job well, as they see it. Stephens was taking calculated risks, risks he was increasingly uncomfortable taking. He was requesting more security to reduce the risks. He was ignored, and yet he still tried to carry on and do his job as he saw it.

It’s amazing how 4 deaths in the Middle East have suddenly become an almost imaginable tragedy. After 6,000 service personnel have given their lives fighting wars…

bayam on October 19, 2012 at 6:54 PM

1. Yes, conservatives never appreciate the lives of 6,000 service personnel. /

2. The 4 deaths were tragedies. Americans are infuriated by the fact that Obama has attempted to shift blame and cover-up the politics he was playing from Day 1 of the tragedy.

wars of questionable strategic value over the past decade

Obama claimed that Afghanistan was the good war and believed that the strategic value was important enough for a surge. Obama rejected the withdrawal of troops from Iraq according to his own campaign promises.

What’s strange is that the left has completely turned their back on dying members of the military now that Obama owns these wars.

I’m near the point now where I want to abandon the whole “pre-planned attack versus spontaneous protest” line of inquiry just because it’s steering us away from the more important topic of State’s negligence on his security.

Yes. Plus: what about the ‘what the hell was Stevens doing in Benghazi on 9/11′ line of inquiry???

Care to take a bet that this will be a co-ordinated effort between CIA and WH admin? Petraus is a closet liberal, as are embers of Chiefs of Staff, one of whom even had the balls to call the video maker to ask him to take it down.

“Going to an extremely dangerous location with totally inadequate security” cannot be found in the job description of an American ambassador. Neither can “Intentionally becoming a hostage or an assassination victim.”

here as well you also state that Stevens intended to become a victim…. you sir talk out your petuty

By most accounts, Stevens cared deeply for the Libyan people. Some accounts report that there was intel at the consulate naming Libyans who were cooperating with us. Consider the distinct possibility that he, among other things, was trying to protect Libyans risking their and their family/friends’ lives by helping us help them.

“Going to an extremely dangerous location with totally inadequate security” cannot be found in the job description of an American ambassador. Neither can “Intentionally becoming a hostage or an assassination victim.”

spiritof61 on October 19, 2012 at 6:48 PM

It may seem obvious in hindsight but military experts have said that no one really understood threats on the ground. Freedom for Libya has also benefited the extremists.

And I am an army veteran and a former Foreign Service Officer myself, thank you very much, so you can descend from your moral high horse now.

spiritof61 on October 19, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Have you ever been part of decisions to evacuate/extract diplomatic personnel from a country?

If so, then you would know that a certain amount of risk is absolutely tolerated for the cause.

And it’s entirely likely that an ambassador believes that a cause is important enough to stay based on hopes that he can and will receive additional security.

If a law enforcement department sends an officer into a dangerous area without backup, then their reasons for doing so need to be inspected even if the law enforcement officer didn’t resist the assignment. The same is true for the Dept of State.

ok well i am done here for a while, i honestly dont think Spirit is willing to listen to anyone here. he reminds me of the bitter old soldiers who saw too much and allowed PTSD to change them into hatefull folks. Whatever he saw has jaded him to the point where anyone who serves is the enemy and should be blamed isntead of blaming the ones who actually committed the atrocities. if i am wrong then i will apologize but frankly he sounds alot like the old vietnam vets who came back and started screaming that no war is justified and that all who follow their orders to go into combat should be tarred and feathered for doing their jobs. makes me want to hurl , so now im going to go and watch some mindless yet entertaining drivel and allow myself to decompress in time to come back for the Quote of the day thread i enjoy so much.

The ambassador’s job is to represent this country, not to intentionally get himself killed or kidnapped. No, repeat no envoy knowingly puts his person into extreme danger without good reason. To do so at his own discretion would be in fact cause for his recall by State.

There was–as far as we know–no reason why Stevens would be in Benghazi on September 11, none at all. The embassy is a secure facility in Tripoli, and you don’t send the chief of mission into danger areas without a damn good reason and without strong security.

Don’t give me this BS about doing his “job.” An ambassador can’t do his “job” if he’s a walking target for any jihadist with a gun. The people need to know the truth about what happened. You’re just helping the administration coverup by whining like a useful idiot about respect for those who fall in the Line of Duty. We show them no respect if we can learn nothing from their loss and treat the whole matter as a “bump in the road.”

1. Soviets quit on the war for same reason we are, We can’t win it. Sitting hidden in just one province in Afghanistan, wioth jusyt major road, and afraid to make any incursions outside is not “winning”, even by Charlie Sheen’s standards.

Soviets decided to leave the place as more and more it was demoralizing the entire country. And no, us selling Taliban and Bin Laden weapons, Stingers included, is not why they quit. And that had nothing to do with USSR falling apart, either. NOTHING.

2. Yes, Stingers are STILL in use today in Afghanistan. From a first person account, I play soccer with someone who did 2 tours there. With Afghanis WAY MORE afraid of seeing Soviet “marines” (“десант”) undershirt he wore under his USA marine uniform than a GROUP of our soldiers. Same shirt his father passed on to him. He was able to get plenty of intel in just 2 minutes of speaking Russian with talibs than hours of “interrogation” by our troops who are LIMITED by our STUPID rules of engagement. Should tell you plenty about how “scared” Afghanis are of us.

Soviets FOUGHT A WAR in Afghanistan. We are merely a presence there. Sadly so.

Denial won’t cover the fact that our own weapons are now used against us. I fault Reagan for selling great weapons to our eventual enemies. And I fault Bush Jr. for sending troops there instead of simply leveling the place, literally, via well placed nuclear hits and leaving it be followed by warnings to Iran, Iraq and Syria that very first terrorist act anywhere in the world will be followed by nuclear hots on their capitals (and see just how fast their support for terror would vain). Japan is a great case in history of how that worked.

Americans don’t understand allowing diplomats to take unnecessary risks simply because the administration needs to create a perception.

Where’s your evidence of this? Are you saying that Hillary forced him to stay at the consulate?
Stevens was a very brave man who openly defined Qaddafi. You shouldn’t assume that he asked for a ticket out of Benghazi. It’s also a wild assumption to speculate that increasing the security contingent would have saved any lives. You’re politicizing this tragedy.

I still don’t understand why Libyan security didn’t respond within 30 minutes- isn’t there an assumed response time from local authorities under the conditions of an attack? It’s simply not possible to have enough security personnel at any single location to withstand a prolonged assault from a large force.

Have you ever been part of decisions to evacuate/extract diplomatic personnel from a country?

If so, then you would know that a certain amount of risk is absolutely tolerated for the cause.

And it’s entirely likely that an ambassador believes that a cause is important enough to stay based on hopes that he can and will receive additional security.

If a law enforcement department sends an officer into a dangerous area without backup, then their reasons for doing so need to be inspected even if the law enforcement officer didn’t resist the assignment. The same is true for the Dept of State.

blink on October 19, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Yes, I was offered evacuation from Haiti. Declined, as I was unmarried and better able to defend myself in a tough situation than most others. I was just a vice-consul, a very junior officer.

You’re missing the point. The ambassador is the chief of mission. His security can never be compromised or depleted, especially in a place like Libya crawling with terrorist elements. He wasn’t asking for evacuation, he was pleading for more robust security. The fact that he was doing that makes his personal, physical presence in Benghazi with practically zero protection on Sept. 11 (of all days) utterly incredible.

I fully suspect that the guy going under the bus will be Stevens. After all, he can’t defend his actions.

It’s also a wild assumption to speculate that increasing the security contingent would have saved any lives. You’re politicizing this tragedy.

bayam on October 19, 2012 at 7:25 PM

And this is how an OBVIOUS IDIOT, without any ability to analyze FACTS, shows his lackey communist roots.

Let’s see here. Even by the idiots in the admin account theu admitted to already, the firefight lasted more than 6 hours. This is with just 2 SEALs armed with rudimentary weapons, holding for HOURS against dozens of assassins much better armed.

A team of 16 PROPERLY ARMED guards would have annihilated the “crowd” in rather short time. Or better yet, no attack would have taken place. AT ALL.

But yet again, you show complete lack of ability to think for yourself and simply repeat other idiots’ lies.

Whether this was an intentional effort by the administration to downplay the role of terrorist groups, especially al-Qa’ida, is one of the many issues the Senate Intelligence Committee must examine,” Chambliss said.

As long as Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein from California is the Chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, it is unlikely that Americans will find out what really happened in Benghazi.

79 year old Senator Dianne Feinstein is up for re-election in November.

Elizabeth Emken is the Republican Candidate who is running against Dianne Feinstein.

The ambassador’s job is to represent this country, not to intentionally get himself killed or kidnapped.

spiritof61 on October 19, 2012 at 7:20 PM

What the heck?

Why are you implying that the ambassador “intentionally” got himself killed?

I was being understanding before, but now you’ve crossed the line.

blink on October 19, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Are you intentionally being obtuse? I assume the contrary, that he did not have a death wish and he went to Benghazi either under orders from State or as a result of a serious lapse of judgment. Nobody knows the truth because State ain’t talking.

Does that help your understanding now, or are you working up to the katee bayer level?

It would seem the Aztec High Priests of the 15th century have been reincarnated and are now in full reign at the building some still call the Pentagon.

America’s Generals are now very much like the Aztec High Priests of many centuries ago. The main difference, and it’s a relatively small one, is that instead of continually sacrificing what they regarded as their excess and disposable human property to the Sun God to try to gain benevolence and avoid wrath, America’s Generals keep trying to sacrifice America’s Constitution, and do sacrifice more and more of the lives and limbs of America’s troops, whom they regard as their excess and disposable human property, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars of America’s rapidly shrinking treasure, which although itself is of much lesser importance is still no small matter, to the gods they reverently call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” to try to gain benevolence and avoid wrath, and maybe even get an extra star and another few assorted colorful baubles for which to adorn themselves.

Is our military fighting for anything most Americans would regard as at all decent in Afghanistan? Certainly not our Army, nor our Marines. America’s Generals have repeatedly ordered them to respect the gods they call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” and if American troops get shot to death by what their Generals call their Partners in Peace, then the Generals conclude that America’s derelict and sacrilegious troops must not have respected the gods they call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” nearly enough and order them to take still more religious and cultural “sensitivity” training so they can better respect the Noble Muslim Culture of the Noble People of Afghanistan, maybe even enough where they can start joining in the practicing of that Noble Muslim Culture themselves, which would no doubt delight the Generals to no end.

There of course is never any “sensitivity” training ever even recommended for what America’s Generals call “The Noble People Of Afghanistan” so they might better understand and appreciate Western and American culture. But then as America’s Generals clearly must regard the Noble Muslim Culture of the Noble People of Afghanistan as being far superior to Western and American culture, they would surely regard any such thing as, well, absolutely unthinkable, and blasphemous, and upon hearing any such suggestion would no doubt order even more “sensitivity” training.
* Mainstream Noble People of Afghanistan Muslim Culture includes child rape of both young girls and young boys, torturing dogs including puppies, total enslavement of women, stoning women to death for being raped, and death to apostates, which itself covers a whole lot, just to very briefly mention a few of the highlights.

You know what – before this tragedy I did not much about Mr. Stevens – I had heard about his dedication – that’s about it.

But when an American – who seemingly is truly kind and giving – is murdered – my heart is torn for his life – his family grievance – and our nation losing a dedicated man.

Lost is all this, as it becomes politics – is the man – the men that were lost.

I tear up just thinking about it.

Anger

jake-the-goose

Yes, it’s a pain deep in the pit of my stomach.

Rush or Hannity was saying the leader of the attack is on local Tripoli tv, celebrating and enjoying the celebrity of screwing the ambassador. And all Obozo did was apologize along with Hillary and Rice. Traitors. All of them. They should be trotted out with handcuffs, right now.

Stevens was a very brave man who openly defined Qaddafi. You shouldn’t assume that he asked for a ticket out of Benghazi.

You shouldn’t assume that I assumed that.

It’s also a wild assumption to speculate that increasing the security contingent would have saved any lives.

Yes, it’s absolutely crazy to think that increased security would have increased the possibility that lives would have been saved. In fact, the notion is so silly, I’m surprised that security is ever increased anywhere for any reason.

It’s also crazy to think that attacks might not be attempted if the would-be attackers are denied certain intel about their targets. Totally crazy, bayam.

You’re politicizing this tragedy.

No, I’m opposed to the politics that were being played prior to the tragedy and the cover-up that has occurred since.

It’s disgusting that you’re trying to use a tragedy to cover-up unacceptable activities.

I still don’t understand why Libyan security didn’t respond within 30 minutes- isn’t there an assumed response time from local authorities under the conditions of an attack?

Let us know if you figure it out.

It’s simply not possible to have enough security personnel at any single location to withstand a prolonged assault from a large force.

It most certainly is possible to have enough security at a location in order to deter or prevent an attack.

I don’t care what your politics are, or what Steven’s politics were, it’s an awful thing when your gubmit sends you on a dangerous assignment and then declines to protect you on it.

petefrt on October 19, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Should be obvious by now that this was an effort to get rid of Stevens. Too bad we won’t ever find out now what he knew and when he knew it.

Between well coordinated efforts between WH, SS and CIA this will be painted as something “unfortunate due to Stevens’ WANT to be in Benghazi that particular day for reasons ONLY HE HIMSELF KNEW and had no time to disclose.”

By all signs this is where its headed. Shredders and IT took care of the rest by now, I’m sure. As they did with Fast and Furious and lenty of other criminal activity in this admin.

Then you must have been trying to “to intentionally get [yourself] killed or kidnapped.”

The ambassador is the chief of mission. His security can never be compromised

I’ve seen ambassador security get compromised on many occasions. On many occasions such a compromise required military assets to moved into place (sometimes from incredible distances and via incredible expense) to beef-up security or to extract diplomatic personnel. This beef-up only came AFTER security had been compromised.

He wasn’t asking for evacuation, he was pleading for more robust security. The fact that he was doing that makes his personal, physical presence in Benghazi with practically zero protection on Sept. 11 (of all days) utterly incredible.

Again, it’s not utterly incredible. I’ve seen it happen. In fact, I’m stunned that you would attempt to make this claim.

It’s almost as if you think ambassadors take a zero risk approach to security. This is absolutely not true.

Sorry. To anyone, even with half a brain, IT CANNOT MAKE SENSE. AT ALL
riddick on October 19, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Riddick, glad to see you admit to having half a brain.

If you remember, Obama was making a big deal of “leading from behind” during the Libyan ordeal, and was so likely being his crafty self arranging for his desperately-wanted removal of Khadaffi. He saw the opening to make friends with the Muslim Brotherhood (read Al Queda). Providing them with an advanced weapons system makes all the sense in the world for someone with as limited a brain capacity and foresight (and hindsight for that matter) as Obama. How were these rag-tag rebels making such rapid progress against someone as ruthless and well-armed as Khadaffi? I think it is very highly plausible that they were getting arms from Obama, and not in the form of cap guns.

Fast forward to the deteriorating situation in a “free” Libya. Pretty devastating a political blunder the Bright Boy made in giving these weapons to Al Queda. It makes all the sense in the world to think that he would rely on his awesome gift of having meetings with no preconditions to sweet talk his new found buddies into giving back his toys. He knew that Amb. Stevens had a relationship and was generally well-liked in Eastern Libya. So he sent him to talk to these wonderful people. Unfortunately, reality reared it’s ugly head.

In order to believe this scenario you would also have to believe that Obama is a naive, narcissistic, amateurish, and totally inept foreign policy operator. I rest my case.

I assume . . . he went to Benghazi either under orders from State or as a result of a serious lapse of judgment. Nobody knows the truth because State ain’t talking.

spiritof61 on October 19, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I’m sure he was conducting State business in Benghazi, and I’m sure he had the authority to opt for his own safety.

Neither issue is the point. The point is that additional security was requested for his mission and this security never materialized. The question is why did the failure occur, and what roll did politics play?

Then you must have been trying to “to intentionally get [yourself] killed or kidnapped.”

That’s a pretty silly thing to say.

I’ve seen ambassador security get compromised on many occasions. On many occasions such a compromise required military assets to moved into place (sometimes from incredible distances and via incredible expense) to beef-up security or to extract diplomatic personnel. This beef-up only came AFTER security had been compromised.

Intentionally weakening security in a dangerous environment is folly. Did you see that? I’m not talking about security being compromised by external or hostile factors; I’m talking about the topic of this thread–refusal to provide security when it is desperately needed. And what exactly is your foreign affairs experience, since you seem to speak so authoritatively?

Again, it’s not utterly incredible. I’ve seen it happen. In fact, I’m stunned that you would attempt to make this claim. It’s almost as if you think ambassadors take a zero risk approach to security. This is absolutely not true.

blink on October 19, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Where have you seen State explicitly deny enhanced security to an ambassador’s well-considered request for a post of extreme and increasing danger? Give the details. And then contact Issa’s committee staff if you’re in possession of such information indicating DipSec has been derelict in its duty.

And please don’t put words in my mouth. There’s always risk. But risk can be managed and handled intelligently, to reduce the possibility of disaster.

Should be obvious by now that this was an effort to get rid of Stevens. Too bad we won’t ever find out now what he knew and when he knew it.

Between well coordinated efforts between WH, SS and CIA this will be painted as something “unfortunate due to Stevens’ WANT to be in Benghazi that particular day for reasons ONLY HE HIMSELF KNEW and had no time to disclose.”

By all signs this is where its headed. Shredders and IT took care of the rest by now, I’m sure. As they did with Fast and Furious and lenty of other criminal activity in this admin.

GOP has no balls. NONE.

riddick on October 19, 2012 at 7:40 PM

You embarrass yourself. And you question Rubin protecting his sources who decline to be named. Sheesh!

You completely missed my point. As I pointed out above, PLEASE list one case when terrorists SOLD arms, sophisticated arms at that, to us. Our weapons are still used against us instead of being sold to us.

And as I also pointed out above, it seems very clear now where this is headed:

“Late Amb. Stevens INSISTED on being in Benghazi that day for reasons STILL NOT CLEAR TO US, reason we are STILL investigating. It is unfortunate that he had no time to share his reasons with in a timely manner as his schedule that day did not allow him enough time to do so”.

You embarrass yourself. And you question Rubin protecting his sources who decline to be named. Sheesh!

NOMOBO on October 19, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Like I said to you (and Rubin as well):

LIST ONE TIME WHEN TERRORISTS SOLD US ARMS.

You know why liberals completely own GOP? Yes, for this same stupidity in GOP to buy BS. And having no balls to to do the right thing and start throwing these scumbags in prison for hiding docs, time and time, which is against the law last time I checked.

But, yeah, believe what you will. Good going for GOP for who knows how long now.

you intentionally being obtuse? I assume the contrary, that he did not have a death wish and he went to Benghazi either under orders from State or as a result of a serious lapse of judgment. Nobody knows the truth because State ain’t talking.

Does that help your understanding now, or are you working up to the katee bayer level?

spiritof61 on October 19, 2012 at 7:36 PM

i knew i shouldnt come back but i did anyway. kiss my behind you miserable old coot , NOWHERE in that post did you so much as intimate that you believed he was sent there in fact you did the oposite insinuating that the ambassador deliberately put himself in harms way. you dont like me calling you on it too darn bad. maybe you should take off the the fake white hat and go back and reread your posts because what you think you said is NOT what came across to others. you want to take jabs at me you go right on ahead i dont care a teeny tiny bit what small minded people think of me as i am secure in the knowledge that i am well loved by darn near everyone who has ever met me. i give people the benefit of the doubt always have always will and i DID SAY if i was wrong i apologized YOU HOWEVER have not even bothered to admit their might be some truth to the fact that what you intended may have come out wrong so as far as i am concerned that makes you the fool not i.

That statement was based on what you had written earlier, but, whatever, I now believe that you meant it differently than you had written it.

Intentionally weakening security in a dangerous environment is folly. Did you see that?

No, I saw deliberate decisions being made to trade-off security in favor of perceived mission. The risk being taken was very well understood. It was not folly.

I saw this more than once.

And what exactly is your foreign affairs experience, since you seem to speak so authoritatively?

I was involved with providing certain aspects of both security and extract capability in a few of those situations. Additionally, I was involved with monitoring both general and dynamic embassy security situations in many countries.

Where have you seen State explicitly deny enhanced security to an ambassador’s well-considered request for a post of extreme and increasing danger?

That’s not what you stated. You stated that it was “utterly incredible” that he would have been present in Benghazi despite the fact that he believed he needed more security.

Maybe you didn’t mean to imply that an American ambassador would never take risks regarding security, but that’s certainly what you did. Reread what you wrote.

And please don’t put words in my mouth.

I’m not putting words in your mouth, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you seem to be writing one thing, and then claiming that you meant another.

There’s always risk.

Then stop claiming that an ambassador would never take any security risks.

But risk can be managed and handled intelligently, to reduce the possibility of disaster.

Argh, this statement is so sophomoric that it’s difficult to respond to.

Of course risk can be mitigated. But mitigation doesn’t equal elimination.

while you are probably right i cant help but think back to the incredibly nasty attitude he portrayed in above posts and to the fact that he used my name as an epithet. so as far as i am concerned it seems he really doesnt care how he treats others which tends to reinforce my belief that he is small minded , however i must thank you Blink for reminding me that the Christian thing to do is to forgive and let it go. and while i can work on doing just that it does not mean that i will ever forget just how offensive this odious little man got.